The US Supreme Court will not overturn a series of Arizona court rulings which compelled police in Yuma County to return marijuana they confiscated from a citizen who was allowed to have cannabis in another state for medicinal purposes.
Valerie Okun, a California resident with a medical marijuana prescription in that state, was stopped by Border Patrol agents at a checkpoint in Arizona in 2011. Finding cannabis in Okun’s car, the police confiscated the drug, hashish and drug paraphernalia from her car. She was charged with marijuana possession crimes, although the charges were dropped when she proved in court that she used the drug as medication.

A number of Arizona courts ruled that the Yuma County police should return Okun’s marijuana, although the police argued that since the drug is still technically illegal under federal law it would be a crime to return the weed in question. They consistently refused, asserting that Arizona’s own medicinal marijuana law – which permits people with authorizations from out of state to keep their cannabis in Arizona – is invalidated by the federal statute.

Sheila Polk, a Yavapai County attorney who serves on the Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys Advisory Council, told the Arizona Capitol Times that the Supreme Court missed a chance to clear up the lingering confusion about marijuana laws in the US.

Despite it quickly gaining acceptance in many states throughout the country, including full legalization in Colorado and Washington, marijuana is still listed as a Schedule I drug. This federal government listing declares that the drug has “no currently accepted medical use,” that it has a high potential for abuse, and equates cannabis with substances including heroin and cocaine.

"To me, that is the elephant in the room," Polk said.

Sorry but I agree with them. That crap should be totally outlawed.

Sorry but I agree with them. That crap should be totally outlawed.

Sorry but I agree with them. That crap should be totally outlawed.

Sorry but I don't agree with you, here in the UK alcohol causes more trouble than canabis.
I'm not saying alcohol should be banned, but I am saying we should have a choice of whether we want to smoke it or not.
Its ok for these politicians to tell us that we can't smoke while they sit there drinking their fancy wines.

What part of the peoples rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness don't you agree with exactly? Those of others?

How can you claim rights you are not willing to accept of others?

The problem is with education, the stripping of civics out of the curriculum. They do not understand rights nor law. They believe society has a right to take others' rights and they think statutes or codes are laws. If they were laws, then why would they need to call them statutes and publish then into codes?

Code:

A systematic and comprehensive compilation of laws, rules, or regulations that are consolidated and classified according to subject matter.

Statute:

An act of a legislature that declares, proscribes, or commands something; a specific law, expressed in writing.

A statute is a written law passed by a legislature on the state or federal level.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/

No one calls the code a law..

You obviously have no clue what a statute is.. Imagine that..